Post Conviction Relief- A Witness Recants

By
Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC
|April 10, 2016

Recantation of a witness' statements from trial can provide relief.

True "after-discovered evidence," which can provide the basis
for obtaining
post convictionrelief after the time for filing a
Post ConvictionRelief Act (PCRA) petition has expired, is evidence that was existent but undiscovered
at the time of trial as opposed to
recantation evidence which did not exist at trial. (I had previously blogged about
newly discovered evidence). The focus of the newly discovered evidence exception to the one-year
limitations period governing a petition for post conviction relief is
on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing
source for previously known facts.

Where a recantation by an eyewitness is not likely to result in a different
verdict if a new trial were granted, it is insufficient to bring the defendant's
petition for relief within the after-discovered-evidence exception. In
addition, if the petitioner, with due diligence, could have discovered
the facts represented by the recantation testimony, the recantation does
not justify late filing under the exception. It is essential to understand
that the focus is on the newly-discovered facts and no the source of those facts.

In one case, the record supported trial court's finding that petitioner
could not have discovered the source of prosecution witness's
recantation, or the recantation itself, through the exercise of due diligence, and
thus his petition for post-conviction relief from his murder conviction was filed timely under after-discovered
evidence exception. There, a
witness testified consistently and unequivocally at trial that petitioner wielded
a knife shortly before the murder and stated that he was going to kill
someone and, as such, it was highly unlikely that defense counsel, without
any supporting factual basis, could have compelled witness to change his
testimony during cross-examination, by engaging in a fishing expedition
as to why witness was lying.
Com. v. Medina, 2014 PA Super 108, 92 A.3d 1210 (2014).

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.